Referrals and acknowledgments are documented. A completed substantive investigation is not established by the records published here.
Status overview · Reviewed October 13, 2026
Different agencies. Separate statuses.
NMDOJ’s closure of matter 10411 applies to that matter in its office. It does not establish the status of the separate NMSP forwarding or LECB submissions.
Oversight correspondence reviewed through October 13, 2026
Referral sent September 20; LECB replied September 21–22 and directed the concerns to MCSO.
Matter number, any separate Director report, agency inquiry and preservation action.
Reviewed October 13, 2026 · Matter 10411
The referral was acknowledged. What review followed?
September 29: a letter signed by Sheriff James Maiorano III acknowledges NMDOJ’s correspondence and says the case is on file and the correspondence will be added to it. This letter appears on page 15 of the “NMDOJ Letter.pdf” production Yazzie sent October 1. Read MCSO’s acknowledgment — original page, 1-page PDF.
October 6: NMDOJ’s Government Counsel & Accountability Bureau issued a four-page response. It found no failure to meet the 15-day response requirement for the two July/August requests discussed in its letter. It attributed administrative review of the officers to their employer and directed the passenger to the DA regarding case records, preservation and investigation completeness. These are NMDOJ’s stated findings and positions.
NMDOJ also says MCSO responded September 29 that it had received the referral and was reviewing the matter. The produced MCSO letter is narrower: it acknowledges receipt and filing, but does not describe a review, identify a reviewer or give findings. Both documents are published so readers can compare them.
Still sought: the referral decision-maker and exact packet; review assignment, scope, evidence considered, findings and corrective action. Receipt is now documented. Neither document identifies who changed the complaint passage or establishes a completed substantive investigation. Question 36 · Question 37.
Records reviewed October 1, 2026 · NMDOJ IPRA #26-815
The referral letters add dates and a follow-up. The decision record remains incomplete.
Two produced letters address MCSO at its Gallup office and specify U.S. postal service. The September 14 letter asks MCSO to confirm receipt by September 21. The September 23 follow-up asks for the matter’s status and a response by September 30. Both are signed by Intake & Constituent Services, without an individual signer.
An assignment message in the reviewed production identifies NMDOJ intake assignee K. Martinez. That establishes an assignment, not who decided, authored or approved the referral. The reviewed submission export also lists three attachments; it does not establish the exact packet sent to MCSO.
NMDOJ closed records request #26-815 on September 29, supplied a production link, described redactions and stated that no records were withheld. That is the office’s production statement, not an independent finding that all requested records were supplied. Closure of this records request is separate from its September 14 closure of complaint matter 10411.
Still unresolved: the named referral decision-maker and basis, exact transmitted materials, complete transmission records and the scope and findings of any substantive review. MCSO’s acknowledgment is now published above. This update covers the reviewed files and correspondence, not a completed audit of the entire production. Question 36 · Question 37.
September 14, 2026 · New Mexico Department of Justice
NMDOJ sends the complaint back to MCSO and closes its matter
NMDOJ’s Intake & Constituent Services wrote that the McKinley County Sheriff’s Office was “better suited to address the issues you raised,” said it had referred the matter to MCSO, and closed the matter in its own office. The email directs further communication and inquiries to MCSO.
“We have referred your matter to that agency. Therefore, this matter will be considered closed in our office.”
The female passenger replied that her complaint concerns MCSO’s own conduct and leadership. She asked why the complaint was sent back to that office, who received it, what materials were sent and when, what substantive review occurred, and how to request supervisory review or reconsideration. She also requested preservation of the complaint, attachments, intake notes, referral records, internal routing information, and review and closure records.
The response is signed by Intake & Constituent Services; it does not name an individual decision-maker or identify the MCSO recipient. The supplied three-message thread contains the closure response and the passenger’s two follow-ups.
Source: September 14 email thread, NMDOJ-ITK-2026-10411. Public copy with the passenger’s name, private email address, and Gmail print URLs removed.
September 7, 2026
New Mexico DOJ acknowledges the complaint submission
The New Mexico Department of Justice’s Electronic Complaint and Tip Submission system confirms receipt of the female passenger’s complaint/tip. The acknowledgment records the submission; it does not announce an investigation, finding, or outcome.
Source: NMDOJ-ECS email, “NMDOJ-ECS Complaint Submitted,” September 7, 2026.
Read the confirmation excerpt
“Your complaint/tip has been received by the New Mexico Department of Justice.”
“Your complaint/tip was submitted on Monday, September 7, 2026 at 2:32 PM.”
Selected text; personal details and the submission reference are omitted.
Record update · September 21, 2026
NMSP: forwarding documented September 10
Major Randy Larcher wrote that he was forwarding the email to NMSP’s criminal-investigations section in Albuquerque and that someone would reach out. The forwarding statement does not itself establish a formal investigation opening, assigned matter number or findings. The follow-up question seeks the assignment, contact history and written disposition.
Read selected email excerpts
Major Randy Larcher · New Mexico State Police · September 10, 2026 Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for Independent Criminal Investigation – McKinley County Sheriff James Maiorano III – MCSO Case 2026-00010128
I am forwarding this email to our criminal investigations section out of Albuquerque. Someone will be reaching out to you.
Selected text from the correspondence. Personal contact details, signatures and unrelated thread history are omitted. These excerpts are not the complete email.
LECB: receipt of the Maiorano complaint acknowledged
On September 10, LECB Operations Officer Iván Ramírez-Aréchiga acknowledged the complaint concerning Sheriff James Maiorano III. Receipt is documented; an assignment, investigation or disposition is not established by that acknowledgment.
Read selected email excerpts
Iván Ramírez-Aréchiga · Law Enforcement Certification Board · September 10, 2026 Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] LECB Misconduct Complaint – Sheriff James Maiorano III – Untruthfulness / Conduct Unbecoming / Possible Criminal Conduct
Received thank you.
Selected text from the correspondence. Personal contact details, signatures and unrelated thread history are omitted. These excerpts are not the complete email.
Record update · September 22, 2026
LECB replied to the Bittony referral and directed the concerns to MCSO
The female passenger’s September 20 referral requests certification review of Deputy Miguel Bittony and raises differences between the recorded allegation, investigative report and signed complaint. It is a submitted allegation and request for review.
Iván Ramírez-Aréchiga acknowledged the information and attachment, described LECB’s misconduct-reporting process, and directed the complaint to the employing agency’s complaint or Internal Affairs process. He also suggested contacting NMDOJ.
In a second reply, Ramírez-Aréchiga acknowledged that an agency’s delay or failure to report does not prevent a separate Director report or remove the Board’s disciplinary jurisdiction. He confirmed that LECB had received and reviewed the material, while stating that this did not establish an investigation or misconduct finding. He nevertheless directed the underlying allegations to the agency department head and MCSO’s administrative or Internal Affairs process.
Ramírez-Aréchiga reiterated that MCSO was better suited to address the issues raised. These replies document LECB’s response; they do not supply a certification case number, separate Director report, or investigative findings.
September 29, 2026 · Governor’s constituent services
The governor’s replies redirect the concern
Two replies provide legal-resource links and state that the governor’s office does not oversee or have authority over the DA, directing the passenger to that office. These are the office’s stated limits and referral response. They do not address who changed the complaint passage, explain a review of the source versions, or document a correction.
Source: governor’s constituent-services email replies, September 29. Personal addresses and unrelated correspondence are omitted.
August 24, 2026 DPS response
The Governor’s Office forwarded the request for independent state-level review to the New Mexico Department of Public Safety. DPS responded that it does not serve as an appellate review authority for determining whether a local law-enforcement agency conducted a criminal investigation to a complainant’s satisfaction, and said it had no additional investigative venue to offer.
This is a documented structural issue, separate from whether any reader agrees with the project’s criticism of the underlying investigation: DPS’s August 24 response identified no additional venue for that request. The later NMSP forwarding and LECB submissions above are separate paths with their own statuses.
Public access · Documented October 14, 2026
A public meeting should not be a guessing game.
Two separate events have different Zoom problems: the October 15 special board meeting has a date conflict; the October 27–29 rulemaking hearings have misdirected links. The public should not have to untangle either problem just to participate.
Special board meeting: October 15 on the agenda, October 20 on Zoom.
The official agenda and Board meeting page list October 15 at 9 a.m. Mountain Time, with meeting ID 879 5427 5719. The passenger reported opening the meeting link and supplied this screen:
Screenshot supplied October 14. Time reproduced as displayed; the image does not show a time zone or meeting ID.
That is a five-day date discrepancy. These materials do not establish that the meeting was officially rescheduled, canceled, or that anyone was excluded. The Board needs to clarify the date and make its public information agree.
Rulemaking hearings: October 27–29, with misdirected links.
Checked October 14: the hearing’s main Zoom URL points to 818 8287 8998. But clicking the displayed meeting ID or passcode points to 857 4767 3362—the room listed for March 26.
October 27–29 hearing notice: what the link says versus where it goes
The hearing remains listed for October 27–29, 9 a.m.–2 p.m. Mountain Time daily. Use the published hearing URL for meeting 818 8287 8998, passcode 283300. This is the published destination; live admission and the host’s schedule have not been verified.
Before those hearings, the Board should correct the misdirected links and confirm the dates and public access instructions. Public participation deserves a working entrance and an unambiguous date.
October 27, 28 and 29, 2026 · 9 a.m.–2 p.m. Mountain Time each day. Attend at the DPS Law Enforcement Academy Auditorium, 4491 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, NM 87507, or join on Zoom. Meeting ID: 818 8287 8998 · Passcode: 283300.
Speak at the hearing or email comments to Ivan.Ramirez-Arechiga@dps.nm.gov. Mail comments to Ivan Ramírez-Aréchiga, P.O. Box 1628, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1628. Mailed statements must arrive by October 26. The notice does not specify a separate email cutoff.
False information during police duties or official investigations.
Misconduct reporting within 90 days of the earlier of an internal review or awareness of alleged misconduct.
Supporting reports, statements and recordings, with continuing supplementation.
Reports against agency heads for delayed reporting, nonreporting or noncooperation.
CEO review of outside complaints, involving a board committee first for allegations against agency heads.
A recommendation to investigate or dismiss a misconduct report.
Read the marked-up draft, especially pages 6–8. Some duties already exist; the draft revises their wording and procedures. These are proposed rules, not adopted requirements or a decision on either complaint below.
